[Bug 202836] Review Request: abuse - The classic Crack-Dot-Com game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: abuse - The classic Crack-Dot-Com game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 01:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Looks very good (and fun), APPROVED. Thanks, imported and build, closing. One small thing, you should add %doc COPYING Woops, I forgot todo this, I've made the change in CVS now, a new version will be forthcoming shortly since there are some annoyances I wan't to fix (which require diving into the source first) such as -f to start fullscreen not working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202837] Review Request: fRaBs - Free data files for abuse the game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fRaBs - Free data files for abuse the game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 02:03 EST --- Thanks, Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|fc5 |devel --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 02:43 EST --- Add COPYING Changelog to %doc Use Dist Tag The New files: Spec URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin.spec SRPM URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin-1.2.2-3.src.rpm The mock build cleanly on my machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 03:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) What is pkgconfig in there for? I don't know, but it is needed for fine mock build. I'm unable to reproduce an issue with this. I removed the buildreq of pkgconfig and it still got pulled in properly as a dependency of other buildrequired packages when running mock builds on FC5.x86_64 and FC6.i386. Where is the failure happening when you guys tried this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 03:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #40) (In reply to comment #39) MUSTFIX: lib-devel contains pkgconfig file(s), so it ought to: Requires: pkgconfig Hmm... is this to get the correct directory structure? Because a owner of .pc files has no need for the pkgconfig command (the users of the .pc files are the ones that need the command). A .pc file is useless without pkgconfig, hence packages providing .pc files should require pkgconfig. And even if you don't buy that argument, the directory that the .pc file is installed into is owned by the pkgconfig package, which is another reason why it must be required. Moreover, libpulse-mainloop-glib.pc in the pulseaudio-lib-devel package contains: Requires: libpulse glib-2.0 glib-2.0.pc is provided by glib2-devel so pulseaudio-lib-devel should have a dependency on glib2-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 05:40 EST --- I think it may be down to my i386 buildsys, but it gtk2-devel wasn't dragging in pkgconfig. I'll need to check at home in case there is a conflict somewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 06:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) I think it may be down to my i386 buildsys, but it gtk2-devel wasn't dragging in pkgconfig. I'll need to check at home in case there is a conflict somewhere. There's something wrong there because gtk2-devel requires glib2-devel, which in turn requires pkgconfig = 1:0.8 The pkgconfig in FC5 is 1:0.20, which should be pulled in by this dependency. The same dependency chain is there in rawhide too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201842] Review Request: plotutils - GNU plotutils graphics libs and utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plotutils - GNU plotutils graphics libs and utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201842 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 07:40 EST --- Paul, thanks for your review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 10:53 EST --- Thanks for Paul's helpful analysis, (in addition to MUSTFIX item from comment #39): 2. MUSTFIX, pulseaudio-lib-devel needs: Requires: glib2-devel Since you're upstream dev, it may be worth perusing pulseaudio's headers to see if dependancies on other pkgs exist as well (I'm betting not, but you never know). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202908] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC - Publish POE event handlers via XMLRPC over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC - Publish POE event handlers via XMLRPC over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202908 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 11:00 EST --- You might want to take out that commented BR: perl( line, but other than that it's another clean cpanspec-generated package. * source files match upstream: 263fd98df07331d64be5beb75b07835a POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC-0.05.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Server::XMLRPC) = 0.05 perl(XMLRPCTransaction) perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC = 0.05-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(POE) perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP) perl(XMLRPC::Lite) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present and the single test passes: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.13 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.17 CPU) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 11:02 EST ---
Sorry for the delay. I'm playing with a few things to see if I can move the
perl bits from %{perl_vendorarch} to %{_libdir}. I'll have an update later
today.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201779] Review Request: xfsdump
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 11:06 EST --- Note the xfs-cmds cvs tree on oss.sgi.com contains the xfstest scripts, many of which run xfsdump/restore regression tests. This scripts are run nightly by Nathan Scott at SGI but only on x86 and ia64 machines. If anybody has other architectures available to test it would to good to have those results as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202910] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202910 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202910] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202910 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 11:51 EST --- This package looks fine, but I'm unsure about the long comment list of Requires: bits. It looks like those are all either found automatically by RPM or pulled in by the perl-POE dep so everything should be OK. * source files match upstream: dec01e04284b5acda6d706018b1f499c POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP-1.11.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP) = 1.11 perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP::Connection) = 1.05 perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP::PreFork) = 0.01 perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP::Response) = 1.03 perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP = 1.11-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(HTTP::Date) perl(IPC::Shareable) perl(POE) perl(POE::Component::SSLify) perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP::Connection) perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP::Response) perl(POE::Driver::SysRW) perl(POE::Filter::HTTPD) perl(POE::Wheel::ReadWrite) perl(POE::Wheel::SocketFactory) perl(Socket) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=4, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.12 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.17 CPU) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202913] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202913 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202908] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC - Publish POE event handlers via XMLRPC over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC - Publish POE event handlers via XMLRPC over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202908 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 12:05 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202006] Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202006 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 12:37 EST --- Build still fails with error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/bin/fmio-wrapper.pyc /usr/bin/fmio-wrapper.pyo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 12:54 EST --- Build failed. devel x86_64. Traceback (most recent call last): File configure.py, line 1132, in ? main(sys.argv) File configure.py, line 1099, in main pyqt.check_modules() File configure.py, line 124, in check_modules check_module(QtGui, qwidget.h, QWidget()) File configure.py, line 403, in check_module if check_class(incfile, ctor, mname): File configure.py, line 430, in check_class return compile_qt_program(cfgtest, mname) File configure.py, line 359, in compile_qt_program exe, build = makefile.build_command(name) File /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/sipconfig.py, line 1622, in build_command build.append(self.required_string(CXX)) File /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/sipconfig.py, line 781, in required_string raise ValueError, \%s\ must have a non-empty value % name ValueError: CXX must have a non-empty value -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202910] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202910 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 13:14 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202913] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202913 Bug 202913 depends on bug 202910, which changed state. Bug 202910 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP - Serve HTTP requests in POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202910 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202913] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202913 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 13:25 EST --- cpanspec makes reviewing new package requests a breeze in Extras * source files match upstream: dcda3222ea8cf981c2aace003aa33733 POE-Component-Server-SOAP-1.09.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Server::SOAP) = 1.09 perl(POE::Component::Server::SOAP::Response) = 1.02 perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP = 1.09-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(POE) perl(POE::Component::Server::SOAP::Response) perl(POE::Component::Server::SimpleHTTP) perl(SOAP::Lite) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.14 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.18 CPU) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 13:26 EST --- Offhand, I'd say looks like a bug in sip. It's not returning a value for CXX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 13:30 EST --- On my rhel4 box, with latest sip /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/sipconfig.py contains 'CXX': 'g++' What does your sipconfig contain? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202496] Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 13:36 EST --- It looks like the unit tests are only in SVN: No problem. I chatted with the developer on IRC and he said that the tests use PyGTK which needs X so that's a non-starter for a rpm build. OK, that's fine. It's just that I always want to see available test suites run if it's possible to do so. Probably because you don't have gajim installed. One of the plugins is for OK, I can accept that some of the included plugins don't run if optional modules aren't installed. Since we have no other way to specify optional modules, can you create a README.fedora file or somesuch with information about which optional modules can be installed to give more functionality? Either that or split out the plugins with extra dependencies into separate packages that have those dependencies. Expected... libmusicbrainz is in Core, but the python-ctypes package needed for the libmusicbrainz python bindings are in Extras. So I just need to install python-ctypes? Or is the issue that the python bindings aren't built in the core package because a requisite module is not in core? Is it possible to get this plugin working at all with the current state of the libmusicbrainz packages? If not, there's probably not much point in shipping the plugin. Neither of these modules are available in Fedora at the moment. My reasoning for including these plugins anyway is that Quod Libet handles errors like this cleanly, and if the user was to obtain these modules some other way (say by manually installing from the source) the plugins would work for them. I can buy that; hopefully the libraries will make it in at some point. The developer feels that these tracebacks may indicate some local problem with the Pythin library. I was unable to duplicate the problem on by screen I have a plain extremely stock FC5 system. It would be nice to get another tester to see if anyone else can duplicate this. I'll try it on a freshly installed machine at work, but the remote display will be slw. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203039] Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203039 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 13:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) The full test suite requires perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) and perl(Test::Pod) to run; these should be buildrequires'ed. Oops. I tested a mock build, but I forgot to look at build.log. -3 has those added. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-0.1.1-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||z) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196749] Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts Alias: php-pecl-xdebug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196749 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203039] Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 14:24 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201656] Review Request: gstm-1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gstm-1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189184] Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189184 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 14:50 EST --- Closing and blocking FE-DEADREVIEW. The original submitter should feel free to reopen if he wants to continue this submission later. If someone else wants to submit this module, open a new ticket and mark this as a duplicate of the new one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202379] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202379 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203180] New: Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203180 Summary: Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/hnb.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/hnb-1.9.18-1.src.rpm Description: Hierarchical notebook(hnb) is a curses program to structure many kinds of data in one place, for example addresses, to-do lists, ideas, book reviews or to store snippets of brainstorming. Writing structured documents and speech outlines. The default format is XML but hnb can also export to ASCII and HTML. External programs may be used for more advanced conversions of the XML data. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203180] Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202006] Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202006
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 15:58 EST ---
Note that FC5 and later will compile every single .py file in existence (which
is a bug) and it will do that at the very end of the rpmbuild run so that you
can't delete the extraneous files. So you need to have this in %files:
%exclude %{_bindir}/fmio-wrapper.py[co]
If you want to target FC4 and earlier or you want to continue to build if this
bug gets fixed, you'll also need to do this in %install:
touch %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/fmio-wrapper.pyc
touch %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/fmio-wrapper.pyo
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203190] New: Review Request: netlabel_tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203190 Summary: Review Request: netlabel_tools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jantill/netlabel_tools/netlabel_tools.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jantill/netlabel_tools/netlabel_tools-0.16-2.src.rpm Description: NetLabel is a kernel subsystem which implements explicit packet labeling protocols such as CIPSO and RIPSO for Linux. Packet labeling is used in secure networks to mark packets with the security attributes of the data they contain. This package provides the necessary user space tools to query and configure the kernel subsystem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202379] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202379 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 16:25 EST --- I'll review this, but I'm not sure I can test it as I'm not a gnome user (partially because of gconf itself). Unfortunately, the build fails for me: + /usr/bin/perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor 'OPTIMIZE=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' *** can not find package gconf-2.0 = 2.0.0 *** check that it is properly installed and available in PKG_CONFIG_PATH at Makefile.PL line 44 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.14178 (%build) Looks like a missing BR: GConfig2-devel. I replaced the unnecessary BR: perl with that (^_^) and now it builds. The usual rpmlint warnings for arch-specific Perl packages: W: perl-Gnome2-GConf devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/GConf/Install/gconfperl-autogen.h W: perl-Gnome2-GConf devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/GConf/Install/gconfperl-version.h W: perl-Gnome2-GConf devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/GConf/Install/gconfperl.h All of which are OK. I'm going to assume for the purposes of this review that the missing BR: GConf2-devel is there. Hmm, it looks like rpmbuild has trouble generating a proper debuginfo package. I added this to the end of %build and it does better: cp xs/* . I don't know what's up with the seven skipped subtests. Any idea? Review: * source files match upstream: 887b979e04df4adbfd616729cda0f37b Gnome2-GConf-1.032.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (after adding GConf2-devel.) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: GConf.so()(64bit) perl(Gnome2::GConf) perl(Gnome2::GConf::Client) perl(Gnome2::GConf::Install::Files) perl(Gnome2::GConf::Value) perl-Gnome2-GConf = 1.032-1.fc6 = libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) perl = 0:5.008 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(Glib) perl(XSLoader) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: t/00.GConfok 7/11 skipped: basic-gconf-app directory not found in GConf. All tests successful, 7 subtests skipped. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers (other than those internal to Perl). * no pkgconfig files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ne.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203180] Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 16:32 EST --- Again, using my review checklist: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist.txt 1. No rpmlint output. Yay! 2. Package appears to meet Naming Guidelines. 3. Spec is named hnb.spec. 4. Package seems to meet the Packaging Guidelines, too. 5. Package licensed GPL... 6. ...as the spec claims. 7. COPYING in included in %doc. 8. Spec appears to be American English...not perfect (incomplete sentence in %description), but English enough. 9. Spec is readable. 10. Tarball matches upstream. Err, sort of; will elaborate below. 11. Package builds for i386 ppc (the two supported archs I have). 12. n/a, AFAIK. 13. BuildReq's ncurses-devel, which seems valid enough. 14. n/a 15. n/a 16. n/a 17. n/a, doesn't create any directories (besides %doc, which it does own). 18. No duplicate %files entries. 19. %defattr looks good. 20. %clean looks good. 21. Macro use appears consistent. 22. Package contains only code, AFAICS. 23. Documentation is minimal. 24. %doc files don't appear to affect runtime. 25. No header/static libraries. 26. No .pc files. 27. No library files. 28. No -devel subpackage. 29. No .la files. 30. No GUI applications. 31. Doesn't own any directories besides %doc, which I doubt any other packages own. :) 32. n/a, already has COPYING. 33. No translations available, that I immediately see. 34. Package builds in Plague. 35. I verified i386/ppc, submitter says he built it on x86_64. 36. Package runs, and certainly appears to work! 37. No scriptlets. 38. No subpackages. As discussed on IRC, the submitted version (1.9.18) isn't listed in their download section, only behind a link on their page leading to a directory supposedly containing hnb-1.9.18pre3. While (as you said, and I agree) the site looks fairly abandonned, I'd appreciate if you'd attempt to contact the authors to get them to make the release a teeny bit more official. Also, keep in mind that if the project *is* abandonned, you're probably responsible for fixing any critical bugs with the package that might come up. Anyways, since this submission meets the guidelines as far as I understand them, I think we can call this APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203190] Review Request: netlabel_tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: netlabel_tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203190
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 16:39 EST ---
I don't see you in owners.list; do you require sponsorship?
Is there an upstream location for the source? You should provide a URL to the
packages main page and make Source0: a full URL so that reviewers can compare
against the upstream source. (I'm guessing that
http://free.linux.hp.com/~pmoore/projects/linux_cipso/ is the upstream.)
You don't use the %{?dist} tag, which is not strictly required but is
recommended because it greatly simplifies maintainance across multiple
releases. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
Your build root is not the recommended one:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
No %{?_smp_mflags} on your make line. If the package won't build in parallel,
please add a comment indicating that.
Note that this is not a complete review; I'm just commenting on a few things I
noticed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203039] Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 16:45 EST --- Looks like we missed two things: 1) libvirt has an ExclusiveArch that I needed to match, and 2) building on rawhide is broken due to a missing dependency in libvirt-devel. I've hopefully fixed both, andI'm testing mock builds now. Anyway, branches have been created, so I'm going to close this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203190] Review Request: netlabel_tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: netlabel_tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203190 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 17:03 EST --- I don't see you in owners.list; do you require sponsorship? I'm not 100% sure what that means. I completed the CLA request successfully. However step three[1] gives me a traceback, if I try and add myself to the cvsextras group (which I assumed I needed to be in, but I'm not sure) ... so I just tried creating a package review request. All the changes to the packaging that you requested have been done (same spec file URL): http://people.redhat.com/jantill/netlabel_tools/netlabel_tools-0.16-3.src.rpm [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203205] New: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203205 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/eclipse-phpeclipse.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/eclipse-phpeclipse-1.1.8-7.src.rpm Description: The PHPeclipse plugin allows developers to write PHP webpages and scripts in Eclipse. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203180] Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 17:24 EST --- Imported, added dist tag which we both missed, built successfully for devel, requested FC-5 branch. Thanks for the speedy review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203190] Review Request: netlabel_tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: netlabel_tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203190 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 17:40 EST --- I know it's hideously long, but the entire process document is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors And there's a helpful bit at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored The bottom line is that you have to be sponsored in order to receive a cvsextras account and so you need to find a willing sponsor. My plate is a bit full at the moment, unfortunately, since I've just today sponsored someone else from Red Hat. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201779] Review Request: xfsdump
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 17:41 EST --- OK, I'll go ahead and review this. The links at the top are the only ones I could find for the package; is that actually the current version? First off, it doesn't build due to a lack of ncurses-devel. Once I add that it does build. Here's what rpmlint says: W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsrestore /sbin/xfsrestore W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsdump /sbin/xfsdump Indeed, these should be relative symlinks. Plus there are tons of these in the debuginfo package: W: xfsdump-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/xfsdump-2.2.38/dump/inv_stobj.c ../inventory/inv_stobj.c It seems that rpmbuild doesn't include the common directory in the package for whatever reason. I don't know how to convince it to do so. I guess that if it were a big deal you could flatten the links. Unfortunately I don't know whether it's a big deal or not so I'll have to ask around. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187325] Review Request: jaws
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaws https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187325 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 17:54 EST --- Closing this bug and blocking FE-DEADREVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188974] Review Request: libGLw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libGLw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 18:19 EST --- About the whole obsoletes discussion, since mesa-libGLw is in FC-5 already (mesa-)libGLw can be introduced into FE for FE-6 at its earliest, FE-6 should only be used with FC-6 in which case all those obsoletes for packages which we haven't shipped for a while can be dropped, since those will all have been replaced with newer packages already because they are obsoleted by packages in FC-6. So depending on the name we should include an Obsoletes: mesa-libGLw (if we choice libGLw as name), or no obsoletes at all. Which name is the best depends on if we are planning to ever ship an alternative libGLw if the answer is most likely not, then libGLw is the best name IMHO. Last about the discussion of the conditional building with / without somestuff, I would personally prefer to see it removed but I won't insist. The same goes for the dri stuff, AFAIK that is irrelevant for this package when build without the rest of Mesa and thus should preferably be removed. when it comes to spec files less often is more. I also have a question, who is the submitter of this package review? I assume its ajax ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), but some of the comments above have confused me. Rex (Dieter) in the light of the openmotif saga it would be nice to get this into extras soon, I asume you're astill going todo the review? Maybe you can post a short list of must and should fix items so that Ajax can have a go at those. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hfsplus-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||edu)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 18:38 EST ---
Using my own review checklist:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist-1.1.txt
1. No rpmlint output, good.
2. The package doesn't use the upstream name (diskdev_cmds), as recommended by
the Package Naming Guidelines. However, the upstream name isn't particularly
descriptive, and your choice is. I think the name is acceptable.
3. Spec is hfsplus-tools.spec, check.
4. As far as I can tell, this package meetings the Packaging Guidelines.
5. Licensed under Apple Public Source License, verified OSI-approved by
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php
6. Spec lists license as Apple Public Source License -- should it be this or
APSL? Most licenses seem to be abbreviated, but this is the first
APSL-licensed package in Fedora I've seen (and I checked all of FC5/FE5).
7. Package doesn't contain a copy of the license text -- submitter has acquired
it as suggested by a quasi-reviewer (thanks Tibbs!).
8. Spec is written in American English.
9. Spec is legible, but slightly confusing -- fortunately the submitter made
lots of comments.
10. Source/patch match upstream, as verified by md5sum.
11. Package built on i386/ppc, the two supported architectures I have.
12. n/a, I suspect.
13. I imagine all BuildReqs are listed; the package built in Plague.
14. n/a
15. No shared libraries (or libraries at all).
16. n/a
17. Doesn't create any directories (besides %doc).
18. No duplicate %files entries.
19. %defattr looks okay.
20. %clean looks good.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains code (and associated documentation).
23. %doc is one file; probably not excessive.
24. %doc does not affect runtime of software.
25. No headers or static libraries.
26. No .pc files.
27. No library files.
28. No -devel subpackage.
29. No .la files.
30. No GUI apps.
31. Package owns files owned by hfsplusutils, but has an appropriate Conflicts
entry. hfsplusutils' most recent upstream release appears to be over four years
old; I'm not sure if offering a more current alternative is much of a crime.
(I'd like to hear some more feedback on this, though.)
32. Release tag contains %{?dist}.
33. The tarball lacks a text copy of the license; you may want to query upstream
to include it. (Optional.)
34. No translations are available, as far as I'm aware.
35. The package built in Plague for i386 ppc.
36. I can't verify x86_64 for lack of hardware, so I can't guarantee this.
37. I specifically reconnected the Mac OS X hard drive in one of my PPC systems
to test this program:
# fsck.hfsplus /dev/hda9
** /dev/hda9
** Checking HFS Plus volume.
** Checking Extents Overflow file.
** Checking Catalog file.
** Checking multi-linked files.
** Checking Catalog hierarchy.
** Checking volume bitmap.
** Checking volume information.
** The volume Macintosh HD appears to be OK.
Not a surefire test, but it definitely didn't segfault.
38. I don't see any scriptlets.
39. n/a, no subpackages.
I'd like to get some public opinion on the hfsplus-tools vs. hfsplusutils issue
(and the License tag, too), but aside from that, I don't see anything holding
this package up.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |edu)| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 18:52 EST --- Uber-reviewer Tibbs chimed in and didn't see anything wrong with either matter, so I'm putting the APPROVED stamp on this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188974] Review Request: libGLw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libGLw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188974 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 19:12 EST --- IMO, items 1-4 in comment #13 should be addressed. In light of comments, skip suggestion 5. After that, we're real close. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203212] New: Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/libgalago/libgalago-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/libgalago/libgalago-gtk-0.5.0-1.src.rpm Description: A collection of widgets that work with the Galago desktop presence framework. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188974] Review Request: libGLw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libGLw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188974 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 19:23 EST --- Re: Obsoletes, item 2. I'll leave that optional(SHOULD), even though imo they're not needed anymore, mharris feels strongly otherwise (comment #18), so I'll defer to his uber-supreme X11 judgement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:33 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review, jima! My iPod thanks you as well ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202913] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-SOAP - Publish POE event handlers via SOAP over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202913 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:47 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202379] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202379 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:51 EST --- Nuts. I hate it when I miss obvious BR's The skipped tests are due to a gconf client not being available inside the mock chroot. There are other tests (a very few) and the dependent tests are properly skipped, so I didn't nix the test suite. I'll make the other requested changes and post a new spec/srpm shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188997] Review Request: magic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: magic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:53 EST --- No response from the package submitter in four months and the needinfo ping went out three weeks ago. I'm closing this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187613] Review Request: sm_tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sm_tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187613 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:56 EST --- I will close this bug in one week if there is no response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178932] Review Request: AutoScan - A utility for network exploration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: AutoScan - A utility for network exploration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:57 EST --- I will close this bug in one week if there is no response from the package submitter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 21:01 EST --- Andreas, do you still want to try to get this in? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 21:32 EST --- This does build fine in mock (x86_64, rawhide). rpmlint says: W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/proxy.sh /bin/bash W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/proxyecho.sh /bin/bash W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/daemon.sh /bin/sh W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/ftp.sh /bin/sh W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/gatherinfo.sh /bin/sh W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/mail.sh /bin/sh Documentation should not be executable. I'll go ahead and work up a full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198289] Review Request: python-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198289 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203217] New: Review Request: csound - music synthesis system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203217 Summary: Review Request: csound - music synthesis system Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/csound/csound.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/csound/csound-5.03.0-1.src.rpm Description: Csound is a sound and music synthesis system, providing facilities for composition and performance over a wide range of platforms. It is not restricted to any style of music, having been used for many years in at least classical, pop, techno, ambient... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 23:44 EST --- So all of the problems I see arise from those six executable bits of documentation. A quick chmod should fix them up. * source files match upstream: 84b709de13e236198a4606fb4b80e123 socat-1.5.0.0.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: socat = 1.5.0.0-1.fc6 = /bin/bash X /bin/sh libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (executable documentation) * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200666] Review Request: theora-exp - Experimental theora decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: theora-exp - Experimental theora decoder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 23:55 EST --- I didn't see any warnings from mockbuild. I do see a pile of compiler warnings of the form: dump_video.c:98: warning: suggest parentheses around + or - inside shift but I'm sure you see those yourse.f The only rpmbuild warning is: W: theora-exp-devel no-documentation which is fine. I'll give this a full review soon if nobody else takes it. It may be a couple of days, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-19 00:04 EST --- re: the build error, we recently had a user encounter the same thing with socal-1.4.3.1. i don't know if the causes are the same, but thought you might find it helpful in some way. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133527 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
